Roster Home Care Ltd - Norwich Office

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff told us this and the records we viewed confirmed that. A concerns tracker was in place that logged all safety incidents, and this showed appropriate reporting and actions taken in response. This included learning from such incidents to help prevent reoccurrence. A staff member told us, “Accidents and incidents are shared through meetings and communication… The manager completes a ‘lessons learnt’ and shares this with the team. There is often training following an incident and follow ups through extra spot checks.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The feedback we received from professionals demonstrated the service worked with them to ensure they could provide safe and effective care. For example, one professional said, “Roster Home Care seem very able in assessing people’s needs and understanding whether they can meet them. They provide a good level of care and work well with me, often supporting people whose needs are complex.” We saw the provider had systems in place to ensure people’s needs were shared in the event they needed to be admitted to hospital, for example, helping to ensure people received consistent care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People told us they felt safe receiving care and support from the service. They told us this was because staff were well trained, competent, and professional. One relative said, “We have an amazing carer. They have fitted in really well into our home and looking after [relative]. We both feel very confident in their abilities and totally safe with them around. We put a lot of trust in them and are very grateful for all they do.” Feedback from staff confirmed they understood safeguarding procedures and records showed any concerns were recorded, reported, and managed as per policy and best practice.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People told us staff were adept at helping to keep them safe and had the skills and knowledge to do so. A relative said, “Staff are well trained to deal with complex needs and the equipment needed to support [relative’s] welfare.” Another relative told us, “I feel so confident in staff’s ability and standards, I feel able to leave [relative] in their care.” Records showed staff had received training in specialised healthcare tasks and had their competency to deliver those tasks assessed; this helped to manage complex risks. We saw that risks to people had been holistically identified, recorded, mitigated, and reviewed on a regular basis.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People told us staff were considerate and respectful of their homes and were vigilant to risk. For example, a person who used the service told us how a staff member had observed a potential issue with a piece of equipment that could have compromised their safety. They said, “Staff are very observant… 1 told me about a potential safety issue. They told me immediately so I could ensure it was looked at.” We saw that people’s homes had been assessed for risk, including in the event of a fire, to help keep people, and staff, safe. Utility cut off points were recorded in the event of an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People told us they received care from the same group of staff who were well trained, competent, and understood their needs. A relative said, “The staff are a really good team who look after [relative’s] physical and mental needs in a very constructive and caring way.” Staff confirmed they received robust induction, training, competency checks, and supervisions that prepared them for their role and made them feel supported; records confirmed that. A staff member said, “We can get individual training sessions with the same trainer which are very good. You can ask questions and they are very flexible, for example, face to face or eLearning, whichever suits you best. They are very in depth and interactive; I cannot fault the training.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control, and people told us they followed best practice when delivering care. A relative said, “The staff are always clean and well-presented and seem to have good hygiene standards. When dealing with [relative] they will always wear gloves and aprons and I have seen them washing their hands.” The provider had an infection prevention and control policy in place and completed regular audits to ensure compliance.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Staff had received training in medicines management and had their competency to administer them assessed. People told us they had no concerns in relation to how staff managed and administered their medicines. A relative said, “All medication is administered by staff, and they are skilled and competent to do this.” Records showed that medicines had been administered as prescribed, and we saw staff were provided with clear information on medicines to assist them in their administration. Medicines errors and shortfalls had been recorded, with lessons learnt, and appropriate actions had been taken in response.